No Prime Mover? -- Kaku

[JDaniel]

If there is a truth behind the universe, and that truth is not hidden then there are ways to access that truth. Whether it is called “God” or “nirvana” is not terribly important.

I am reluctant to rely on Revelation, as there are many to pick from, and a lot of them tell me that some, or all, of the others are wrong. No revealed religion can show me someone here and now who is in heaven. Buddhism can show me people here and now who have attained enlightenment. Even someone in a revealed religion can attain enlightenment:[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton
Buddhism focuses on a goal that is attainable here and now, albeit with difficulty. I am sure that I exist; I am not so sure about God. If I have to rely on one or the other, then I will rely on the one I know exists to reach a goal I know is attainable.

Do you believe in reincarnation and why?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

If there is a truth behind the universe, and that truth is not hidden then there are ways to access that truth. Whether it is called “God” or “nirvana” is not terribly important.

To me it is very important.

I am reluctant to rely on Revelation, as there are many to pick from, and a lot of them tell me that some, or all, of the others are wrong.

Just so that I can understand what you mean here, can you cite one example for me?

Buddhism can show me people here and now who have attained enlightenment.

But then I must rely on you(?) to validate that someone? And, if you find him to be “enlightened” and I don’t, what then?

Even someone in a revealed religion can attain enlightenment:[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything - without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya… everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

This is why I don’t like this sort of stuff. It seems to me like some sort of slick, flowery words and imagery, spoken to convey something deceptive. It “sounds” very nice. It “sounds” very cool. It “sounds” very sophisticated. It “sounds” very intellectual. Until the time comes for us both to come face to face with that “enlightened one”. Then, I, much to, or from, my chagrin, discover that he is nothing more than another human being. That he is nothing special. That he does nothing special.

There are those that have the ability to - with a certain look - make one think they are observing someone who KNOWS. The ALL-KNOWING guy. He who seems to have some secret knowledge, or connection, that you don’t have. There are those that have the ability of doing that with their words, so being in their presence is not an imperative. It is a deception. Nothing more. So, if you could show me one person who has achieved “enlightenment” and can supply me with one or two tiny examples of what and where to look for that enlightenment, I promise that I will try very hard.

Buddhism focuses on a goal that is attainable here and now, albeit with difficulty. I am sure that I exist; I am not so sure about God. If I have to rely on one or the other, then I will rely on the one I know exists to reach a goal I know is attainable.

But, then, I have to rely on you. For me, I’d rather rely on God. No offense.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Moving your hand is not a single action. It moves the first 0.001 mm, then it moves the second 0.001 mm at a different speed (as it is accellerating) and from a different starting position. You are not making a single action, but a multitude of separate actions. This is inherent in any action taking place inside time and space. Even if God wants to act inside time and space then His actions will be similarly broken down into Planck Times and Planck lengths. When He parted the Red Sea He first had to move the water the first 0.001 mm, and then the second 0.001 mm and so on.

Besides being a clear violation of Occam’s Razor, now we get to that which I dislike and find very, very rationalistic. What should be so simple goes way overboard with complexity to such an extent that the complexity itself seems to betoken deception. When we speak of substantial change, we understand that a whole material, or mobile, being is changed into another material, or mobile being. When we speak of accidental change, we mean that the material thing remains essentially what it is but is changed only by some slight modification. Such slight modifications include, but are not limited to, change of place, change in quantity, or change in quality.

While we can conventionally speak of throwing marbles in the air as a single action, that is only a convention and does not fully reflect the underlying reality.

To me it completely reflects reality and does so in much better compliance with the Occam’s Razor concept… That there are quantum actions taking place, in the mobile being, is merely superficial. It is merely the mechanics. These superficial, quantum actions do not deny the single action. In fact how I described it is exactly how human beings describe the action every day. Additionally, how I described it is exactly how human beings have described it ad infinitum. It would be a grossly improper locution to say, "I lifted my two arms .001 mm, with 30 marbles divided equally between both hands affixed thereto, then passing through the next .001 mm, I began to accelerate the upward motion ever so slightly, then, a moment later, I increased the speed by such and such an amount for the next .001 mm, etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. In fact, even these actions could be broken down into sub-actions; and, the results broken down again and again, over and over. On the quantum level, we shouldn’t be limited by OUR inability to further divide a divisible thing. NEVERTHELESS, no substantial change has taken place and the act is still a manifold single act.

All descriptions of God limit God, so He cannot do everything. If God is omniscient then He can never learn anything new because He would already know it. He can never move because He is omnipresent; He cannot leave the departure point and He cannot arrive at the destination because He is already there.

Here, you are turning the negative into the positive. When it is said of God that He is omniscient, it is meant that He has no limitation of knowledge. “Learning”, as any motion, is from privation to possession. We mean that God has no privation. He possesses all knowledge. The same with movement. He is omnipresent, which means he exists everywhere. There is no privation of place in Him. Movement, like learning, is an accidental attribute in the genus of substance. Since God does not consist of substance, it is meaningless to speak of “learning” and “movement” where He is concerned.

Science is in the business of making models and testing those models against reality. Scientists are well aware that they are working with models, and the fact that they test those models against reality also means that they are aware that their models are not in themselves reality. I can see no problem there. Problems arise when we think that our internal model of reality actually is reality; it is not.

But, Rossum, that is just not true. The scientist uses “real” stuff and constructs “real” scenarios - he tries to replicate exactly what happens in the wild. In fact, the replication is “REAL”. Now, he could alter an experiment a little, or a lot, by adding other stuff that ordinarily would not be found in the wild. But we also do that when we alter wood to determine when the substantial change occurs, when the wood becomes not-wood.

No, we set light to a statue of the Buddha

Oh, I SEE.

It is interacting at its surface with molecules in the air. It is expanding or contracting as the ambient temperature and windspeed change. Any radioneuclides inside it may decay. It is moving on a path around the Sun and around the centre of the galaxy. It is getting older. It may not be changing as fast as it did when it was a tree, but it is still changing.

Prove that it is changing. Prove that a diamond changes. Both without using some exceptionally powerful methodology built for the purpose of changing such things. I suspect some small changes might be noticed after perhaps many generations of observers observing the same objects. But then, perhaps not.

Every morning you get up to walk to the bus stop. On the corner is a local cat sitting on the wall. Because you are mildly allergic to cats you sneeze every morning as you pass it. Is it the same sneeze every day? Is it the same cat every day? Is it the same you every day? Is it the same wall every day? To a Buddhist none of them are the same.

So, you are telling me I need to bring my gun with me every day because while I may have killed the original cat, there will be a continuous array of cats on that wall every day for the rest of my mundane existence. At least I’ll have something to look forward to each day! *

*(My sincere apologies to cat lovers; it was just a joke.)

 

[Ghosty]

It may be worthwhile at this point to move the discussion to a new thread, as we’re veering off topic. It’s a great discussion, but it might just be confusing for other browsers of the Forum. If we all agree, I can start a new thread with my response to Rossum’s latest response. If not I’ll just continue posting on this thread.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JDaniel]

It may be worthwhile at this point to move the discussion to a new thread, as we’re veering off topic. It’s a great discussion, but it might just be confusing for other browsers of the Forum. If we all agree, I can start a new thread with my response to Rossum’s latest response. If not I’ll just continue posting on this thread.

Peace and God bless!

I’m OK with moving it.

jd

 

[rossum]

It may be worthwhile at this point to move the discussion to a new thread, as we’re veering off topic. It’s a great discussion, but it might just be confusing for other browsers of the Forum. If we all agree, I can start a new thread with my response to Rossum’s latest response. If not I’ll just continue posting on this thread.

Peace and God bless!

A new thread is fine with me.

rossum

 

[Matthias123]

A small difficulty: If beings can move by themselves kinetically in space time, then why isn’t it possible that change isn’t dependent on a mover?

(You wanted back on topic)

 

[Ghosty]

A small difficulty: If beings can move by themselves kinetically in space time, then why isn’t it possible that change isn’t dependent on a mover?

(You wanted back on topic)

“Movement” here doesn’t mean kinetic movement. Also, the idea of “Prime Mover” doesn’t mean that changes can’t occur within the created system, it simply means that the system itself can’t “get going” or account for itself without an outside agent starting it off.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Matthias123]

I don’t think I expressed myself clearly. I am just asking since as Kaku suggested physical objects can change location bythemselves why can’t all things potentialy change by themselves?

 

[Matthias123]

Also, I was reading from PROVIDENCE by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. He talks about how also physical things also need movers.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/PROVID.HTM#1 (Read from part I)

So how do physical particles move bythemselves? It seems philosophically impossible.I would like to hear Kaku explain this; I think it would be interesting.

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t think I expressed myself clearly. I am just asking since as Kaku suggested physical objects can change location bythemselves why can’t all things potentialy change by themselves?

The point is that the gas molecules don’t in fact move around by themselves. Rather they move around by laws of physics which are superior to them (the laws are not bound only in gas molecules, but cover all things). The gas molecules do not, of themselves, contain the whole reason for their movement, and therefore a superior mover is needed, in this case the laws of physics. The laws of physics, also, do not contain their own reason for being, and therefore also rely on a superior cause of movement. At the end of this chain, which may continue for some steps, there must be something which is indeed the cause of its own movement, and all movement; it is the most superior cause, the Prime Mover.

What Fr. Garrigou Lagrange is describing is the chain of motion, and this motion is not merely physical, local motion. Objects do have physical, local motion, and not all of it is caused by a physical, local mover. Ultimately it is caused by a transcendant mover that is superior to all notions of physical movement or place, which wills things to move, and in the case of gas molecules this transcendant being wills the laws of physics which move the gas molecules.

What Kaku is saying is that no other object appears to be moving the gas molecules around, but he’s using only the most limited notion of movement. He’s forgetting that the laws of physics move the gas molecules, and that the gas molecules do not move themselves by some magical property that is inherent only within themselves.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Matthias123]

Thanks!

Do you have a degree in philosophy?

 

[Ghosty]

Thanks!

Do you have a degree in philosophy?

Nope, and I never took a philosophy course in my life. I just studied the Summa under a brilliant Dominican when he was living at the local Priory and I continue to read it for fun and relaxation.

Peace and God bless!